DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/6/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation, in English, of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the following references listed that are not in the English language: DE 102016220084 (citation number F-2) and “German Search Report” (citation number L-1). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 1/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation, in English, of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the following reference listed that is not in the English language: “Communication pursuant to Article 94(3)” (citation number L-1). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The listing of references in the specification, on page 1, line 18, is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Δt’ (fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 1, it is unclear how the trajectory x’(t),y’(t) demonstrates the user temporarily leaving the approach area portion because both of the user’s feet never leave the approach area.
In figure 1, it is unclear what the dashed lines, annotated with arrows in the figure below this paragraph, are intended to represent, because they are unlabeled, and do not appear to be specifically addressed in the specification.
It is unclear what figures 2a-2c are intended to disclose because the axes are unlabeled. Page 11, line 31, to page 12, line 2, disclose figure 2a shows different radar targets as a function of detection angle, however, it is unclear if the figures show detection angles with respect to time or a two-dimensional representation of the positions of detected objects.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
771
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because lines 1 and 11 contain the implied phrases “various embodiments relate to” and “it is proposed that”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, line 18, “which various embodiment use” should read “which various embodiments use”.
On page 9, line 24, “further frequency modulated” should read “frequency modulated”.
On page 9, line 25, the acronym FMCW should be defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 13, lines 8 and 7, respectively, “depending on the result of the check” should read “depending on a result of the check”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 6, line 3, “is or are passed through” should read “is passed through”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an authentication unit”, i.e., a unit that authenticates, in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Page 7, line 12, discloses an authentication unit is an electronic key, therefore, an authentication unit will be interpreted to be an electronic key and equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, lines 10 and 8-9, respectively, the limitation "upon detection of a valid user action" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same valid user action recited in claim 1, line 9, and claim 13, line 8.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, lines 13 and 12-13, respectively, the limitation "a time-dependent association of detected sensor values with the user" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the sensor values are the same sensor values relating to a user action of a user recited in claim 1, lines 4-5, and claim 13, line 4.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, lines 14-15 and 14, respectively, the limitation "the position of the user" lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim which makes it unclear if the position of the user is defined by the user trajectory or the position of the user is measured by the sensor values.
Regarding claim 2, line 2, the limitation "a prescribed user recognition criteria" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the user recognition criteria is one of the prescribed user action criteria recited in claim 1, line 8, or is the user trajectory complying with a trajectory specification recited in claim 1, lines 16-17.
Regarding claim 3, lines 2-3, the limitation "an object detected in the sensor values" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the object is the user recited in claim 1, lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 3, line 3, the limitation "a prescribed approach toward the motor vehicle" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the prescribed approach is one of the prescribed user action criteria recited in claim 1, line 8, or is the user trajectory complying with a trajectory specification recited in claim 1, lines 16-17.
Regarding claim 6, lines 3-4, the limitation "within a prescribed approach period" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the period of time that the user trajectory runs within a prescribed approach area portion recited in claim 5, lines 2-3.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, the limitation "in each case" renders the claim indefinite because the cases lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim making it unclear how the approach area portions are related to the plurality of motorized flap arrangements.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, the limitation "with the qualification as a valid user action" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same user action qualified as a valid user action recited in claim 1, line 9.
Regarding claim 10, line 2, the limitation "one of the actuation criteria" renders the claim indefinite, because the actuation criteria lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, making it unclear if the action criteria are the prescribed user action criteria recited in claim 1, line 8, or include the user trajectory complying with a trajectory specification recited in claim 1, lines 16-17.
Regarding claim 10, lines 5-6, the limitation "the user recognition criteria" renders the claim indefinite, because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, making it unclear if the user recognition criteria is one of the prescribed user action criteria recited in claim 1, line 8, or is the user trajectory complying with a trajectory specification recited in claim 1, lines 16-17.
Regarding claim 10, lines 6-7, the limitation "a position value … of the object detected in the sensor values" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the position of the user recited in claim 1, lines 14-15.
Regarding claim 10, line 8, the limitation "a position value of the authentication unit" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the position of the authentication unit is determined by merely detecting the presence of the authentication unit.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, the limitation "in the driving mode" renders the claim indefinite, because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, making it unclear if the vehicle-to-vehicle application in the driving mode includes detecting user action when the motor vehicle is parked and/or detecting objects in the displacement region of the motorized displacement of the flap arrangement.
Regarding claim 11, line 5, the limitation "detect objects" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the objects include the user recited in claim 1, lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 11, lines 5-6, the limitation "the displacement region of the motorized displacement of the flap arrangement" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim making it unclear where the displacement region is positioned with respect to the flap arrangement.
Regarding claim 12, line 3, the limitation "a prescribed user gesture" renders the claim indefinite because it unclear if it is the qualified user action recited in claim 1, line 9.
Regarding claim 12, line 4, the limitation "the approach area portion" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim making it unclear where the prescribed user gesture must be performed in relation to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, line 5, the limitation "the confirmation area portion" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim making it unclear where the prescribed user gesture must be performed in relation to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, line 1, the limitation "a motor vehicle" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if is the same motor vehicle recited in claim 1, lines 1-2.
Regarding claim 15, line 2, the limitation "a prescribed user recognition criteria" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the user recognition criteria is one of the prescribed user action criteria recited in claim 1, line 8, or is the user trajectory complying with a trajectory specification recited in claim 1, lines 16-17.
Regarding claim 15, line 3, the limitation "the object detected via the sensor values" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the object is the user recited in claim 1, lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 15, line 4, the limitation "representative of a user" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the user is the same user recited in claim 1, lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 16, lines 2-3, the limitation "the speed values represent an approach" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the approach is the prescribed approach recited in claim 3, line 2, that is defined by a speed value of a detected object representing the prescribed approach toward the motor vehicle.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rrumbullaku et al. (US 2022/0041133), hereinafter Rrumbullaku.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses a method for operating a motorized flap arrangement of a motor vehicle, wherein a control arrangement for activating a motorized drive arrangement assigned to the flap arrangement (Rrumbullaku; para. 30: SAM 123 may primarily perform functions related to providing access to the vehicle 101 through door 143 by commanding one or more actuators to, for example, unlock, unlatch and/or open the door) and a radar sensor coupled to the control arrangement are provided, wherein sensor values relating to a user action of a user situated outside of the motor vehicle are detected by the radar sensor (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: The radar system becomes active at block (211) to effect the approach-based door actuation functions and begins to radiate.), wherein the detected sensor values are checked, by the control arrangement, for the fulfillment of prescribed user action criteria, wherein, depending on the result of the check, the user action detected via the sensor values is rejected or is qualified as a valid user action (Rrumbullaku; para. 35: the tracked person whose trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with the active trajectory zone 138 is checked for entry into the active radar zone), and wherein, upon detection of a valid user action, the control arrangement activates the drive arrangement for the motorized displacement of the flap arrangement (Rrumbullaku; para. 35: Until entry into the active radar zone 136, block (235) continues to monitor. Upon entry, however, block (235) exits to block (237) whereat additional verification of the continued existence of the tracked person in the active radar zone 136 is performed … If validated, block (245) causes BCM 115 to command … the door actuator to open the door 143.), wherein, in a user tracking routine, a time-dependent association of detected sensor values with the user is performed by the control arrangement (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: a single person's trajectory may be tracked at block (231)), a user trajectory for the position of the user is determined from the time dependence of the sensor values associated with the user (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include such information as a tracked target's dynamic vectoring, for example, a tracked object's distance or range, position (present and future predicted), and velocity including rate and direction of travel over time.), and at least one user action criterion is defined by the fact that the user trajectory complies with a trajectory specification (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235). Otherwise, the routine continues to monitor and evaluate the trajectory at block (233).).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the user tracking routine is triggered upon fulfillment of a prescribed user recognition criterion (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: The radar system continues to monitor at block (223) and when an object is detected may proceed to block (225) where the radar system may partially validate the object by classification. If the object is not a person, the routine continues to monitor for a new object at block (223).).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that speed values of an object detected in the sensor values represent a prescribed approach toward the motor vehicle (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include … velocity including rate and direction of travel over time. If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235).; para. 34: approach direction of the trajectory may make such an intersecting trajectory acceptable, as might rate of approach).
Regarding claim 5, Rrumbullaku discloses the trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that the user trajectory runs within a prescribed approach area portion at least over a period of time (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include … velocity including rate and direction of travel over time. If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235).; para. 34: a trajectory consistent with vector 153 would intersect with active trajectory zone 138 but may be unacceptable because it may conflict with the path of travel of door 143 unless the rate of approach suggests the tracked person would clear the door swing in advance of opening).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that the approach area portion is or are passed through by the user trajectory within a prescribed approach period (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include … velocity including rate and direction of travel over time. If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235).; para. 34: a trajectory consistent with vector 153 would intersect with active trajectory zone 138 but may be unacceptable because it may conflict with the path of travel of door 143 unless the rate of approach suggests the tracked person would clear the door swing in advance of opening).
Regarding claim 7, Rrumbullaku discloses a confirmation area portion is provided between the motor vehicle and the approach area portion (Rrumbullaku; para. 34: an active trajectory zone may correspond to a region primarily defined within the active radar zone 136, yet further limited in distance or range from the vehicle 101. An exemplary active trajectory zone 138 illustrated in FIG. 1 may be within the active radar zone but further limited to within a predetermined range) and the trajectory specification meets the user trajectory in the approach area portion (Rrumbullaku; para. 35: the tracked person whose trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with the active trajectory zone 138 is checked for entry into the active radar zone 136).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses one of the actuation criteria is defined by the fact that an authentication unit is detected by the control arrangement, wherein the detection of the sensor values by the control arrangement is triggered upon detection of the authentication unit (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: an authenticated security token within the passive RF zone 139 will cause the PEPS system to fully wake to a more active monitoring state and may cause additional vehicle systems to wake at block (207) including SAM 123 causing the radar system to wake at block (209). The radar system becomes active at block (211) to effect the approach-based door actuation functions), and/or that the user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that a position value, determined from the sensor values of the radar sensor, of the object detected in the sensor values corresponds to a position value of the authentication unit determined by the detection of the authentication unit.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the radar sensor is designed for a vehicle-to-X application, wherein the radar sensor is designed for a vehicle-to-vehicle application in the driving mode (Rrumbullaku; para. 29: radar sensor 127 is shown at the driver side of the vehicle … side positioning of sensor 127 may be more preferred with respect to sensing adjacent vehicles in an anti-collision system) and is used for detecting the sensor values relating to the user action when the motor vehicle is parked (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: method 200 may begin the routine at block (201) where the vehicle 101 is, for example, not occupied and not being operated such as after being parked), and/or the radar sensor is designed to detect objects in the displacement region of the motorized displacement of the flap arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses a motor vehicle (Rrumbullaku; fig. 1: vehicle 101) for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Rrumbullaku discloses the user trajectory passes through at least two prescribed approach windows of the approach area portion (Rrumbullaku; para. 32: The passive radar zone 135 may overlay, in whole or in part, the passive RF zone 139. Similarly, the radar system defines an active radar zone 136 to a distance of, for example, about 1.5-2 meters.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Hu et al. (US 2022/0309835), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 4, Rrumbullaku discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku does not explicitly disclose in the user tracking routine, a plurality of radar targets detected in the sensor values are combined in accordance with a cluster model to form a cluster target, the cluster target is associated with the user in a time-dependent manner and the user trajectory is determined on the basis of the cluster target.
Hu, in a reasonably field of endeavor (pedestrian detection and tracking), discloses in a user tracking routine, a plurality of radar targets detected in sensor values (Hu; para. 74: After obtaining radar data, the footstep points are extracted by dynamic point extraction, point clustering) are combined in accordance with a cluster model to form a cluster target (Hu; para. 132: The center point of each cluster is the representative point of all points in the point cluster, which is used to represent the position of the footstep candidate. The invention takes the average of point coordinates in the cluster as the cluster center feature.), the cluster target is associated with a user in a time-dependent manner (Hu; para. 75: when human is detected, relevant walking information will be output and saved to files, including walking speed, length of footsteps and other information) and a user trajectory is determined on the basis of the cluster target (Hu; para. 74: Footsteps are tracked by using trajectory matching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination, using RADAR measurements, of the tracked person's location, speed, and trajectory by the EOC module of Rrumbullaku, to identify the location of the person's feet by identifying the center point of a cluster of point coordinates, as disclosed by Hu, to yield the predictable result of accurately determining the positions and paths of people near the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Rrumbullaku discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku does not explicitly disclose in the user tracking routine, the detected, time-dependent sensor values are associated with the user on the basis of a mathematical estimation model.
Hu discloses in a user tracking routine, detected, time-dependent sensor values are associated with a user on the basis of a mathematical estimation model (Hu; para. 145: The invention employs Kalman filter algorithm to build a dynamic system, model the footsteps, and track the walking trajectory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a Kalman filter, as disclosed by Hu, to determine, using RADAR measurements, the tracked person's trajectory in the EOC module of Rrumbullaku, with the motivation of avoiding temporary losses in the tracking process, such as footsteps being blocked by environmental objects (Hu; para. 147) thereby improving reliability.
Regarding claim 17, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the cluster model is based on the determination of a cluster target using statistical values of radar targets (Hu; para. 137: The invention uses the trained random forest model to recognize the point clusters, classify the clusters into foot class and non-foot class.), selected using position values (Hu; para. 132: The center point of each cluster is the representative point of all points in the point cluster, which is used to represent the position of the footstep candidate. The invention takes the average of point coordinates in the cluster as the cluster center feature.), amplitude values and/or speed values.
Regarding claim 20, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the estimation model is based on an alpha-beta filter, a Kalman filter (Hu; para. 145: The invention employs Kalman filter algorithm to build a dynamic system, model the footsteps, and track the walking trajectory) and/or a nonlinear filter.
Claim(s) 8, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Tamura (US 2021/0301580).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku does not explicitly disclose a plurality of motorized flap arrangements are provided, for which an approach area portion is prescribed in each case, and, with the qualification as a valid user action, using the user trajectory and the approach area portions the user action is assigned to one of the flap arrangements for the motorized displacement.
Tamura, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle access control systems), discloses a plurality of motorized flap arrangements are provided, for which an approach area portion is prescribed in each case, and, with a qualification as a valid user action, using a user trajectory and the approach area portions the user action is assigned to one of the flap arrangements for motorized displacement (Tamura; paras. 75-76: the direction specifying unit 111A acquires the images captured at predetermined intervals when the user is present in the communication area A2 … Thereafter, the direction specifying unit 111A determines whether or not the feet F of the user are present in the recognition area A3 … When the feet F of the user are present in the first recognition area A31, the direction specifying unit 111A turns on a flag indicating that the door which the user intends to operate is the slide door 41. Meanwhile, when the feet F of the user are present in the second recognition area A32, the direction specifying unit 111A turns on a flag indicating that the door which the user intends to operate is the back door 42. Namely, the direction specifying unit 111A determines whether the door which the user wants to operate is the slide door 41 or the back door 42, based on the position where the user stands.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the vehicle of Rrumbullaku to include multiple activation areas corresponding with different doors, as disclosed by Tamura, to yield the predictable result of opening the door an approaching person most likely intends to use.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku does not explicitly disclose one of the user action criteria relates to the recognition of a prescribed user gesture (Tamura; fig. 10, S19: is gesture detected?), wherein the prescribed user gesture is to be carried out after the approach area portion has been walked through, in particular in the confirmation area portion (Tamura; fig. 10, S34: are feet of user present in recognition area?).
Tamura discloses a user action criterion relates to recognition of a prescribed user gesture, wherein the prescribed user gesture is to be carried out after an approach area portion has been walked through, in particular in a confirmation area portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the additional verification, by the EOC module, of the continued existence of the tracked person in the active radar zone of Rrumbullaku, to require the person to perform a gesture in a specific area, as disclosed by Tamura, with the motivation of suppressing a gesture from being detected based on a moving object which is not the user (Tamura; para. 53) thereby improving the accuracy of detection of the gesture (Tamura; para. 55).
Regarding claim 19, Rrumbullaku discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku does not explicitly disclose the trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that the user trajectory experiences a stopping motion in the confirmation area portion, wherein a maximum speed is not reached and/or a minimum residence time in the confirmation area portion is exceeded.
Tamura discloses a trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that a user trajectory experiences a stopping motion in a confirmation area portion, wherein a maximum speed is not reached and/or a minimum residence time in the confirmation area portion is exceeded (Tamura; para. 93: when a moving object moving in the imaging area A1 stops in the recognition area A3 for a predetermined time, the direction specifying unit 111 may determine that the moving object is the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination by the EOC module that the tracked person has entered the limited active trajectory zone of Rrumbullaku, to require the person to stop for a minimum amount of time in a specific area, as disclosed by Tamura, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of determining the direction of the user (Tamura; para. 93).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Hornung et al. (US 2020/0011656), hereinafter Hornung.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the user tracking routine is triggered upon fulfillment of a prescribed user recognition criterion.
It is unclear if Rrumbullaku explicitly discloses the user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that the object detected via the sensor values complies with an expansion specification representative of a user.
Hornung, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (user monitoring systems), discloses a user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that an object detected via sensor values complies with an expansion specification representative of a user (Hornung; para. 58: There is additionally another object 28 that cannot be identified in any more detail and could be an article or a false detection. If it is beneath the minimum size, it can be ignored; otherwise it must be recognized as a person).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the classification of a detected objected as a person by the radar system of Rrumbullaku, to include a minimum required size, as disclosed by Hornung, with the motivation of determining whether it is likely a person approaches the door with the intention of passing through or is merely passing near the door by chance thereby controlling the automatic triggering of an actuator much more sensitively with less effort (Thilo; para. 12).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Thilo et al. (DE 102 34 291), hereinafter Thilo.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku discloses, in paragraph 33, the tracked person's trajectory must indicate an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone, therefore, the person must be moving towards the vehicle with a speed greater than zero.
Thilo, in the same field of endeavor (automatic door controls), explicitly discloses speed values represent an approach exceeding a prescribed minimum speed (Thilo; para. 12: a further evaluation can be carried out to determine whether at
least one object is approaching the door at a specified minimum speed. In such cases, the distance and/or direction of this object can be used to determine whether it is likely approaching the door with the intention of passing through or is merely passing near the door by chance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the acceptable trajectory of the tracked person by the EOC module of Rrumbullaku, to include a minimum approach speed, as disclosed by Thilo, with the motivation of determining whether it is likely a person approaches the door with the intention of passing through or is merely passing near the door by chance thereby controlling the automatic triggering of an actuator much more sensitively with less effort (Thilo; para. 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scheufler et al., in US 2018/0018179, disclose methods for pre-booting vehicle systems wherein a person is determined to be approaching a vehicle, or passing by it, by tracking their trajectory through different detection zones around the vehicle.
Krauss et al., in US 2016/0186480, disclose a method for opening a vehicle door comprising identifying a person near a vehicle is an authorized user, and projecting a series of lights spots that the user must sequentially stop on over a predetermined time interval.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665